I know that this is a little late for reviewing, but I am open to learning new things. Kindly rate the essay and let me know how I can improve my writing.
Also, if it isn't asking too much, please rate it on a scale of 0 to 6.
Thanks!
Quote:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“This past winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of the state’s college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The author contends that the state legislature should not take the protests of the Waymarsh State College students seriously since the number of protestors that travelled to the state capitol building are dwarfed by the number of students that did not. His conclusion is based on the assumption that the ratio of students that travelled to protest actively to those who did not is enough to judge the number of students who oppose the proposed cuts in funding. This argument suffers from serious logical flaws and is supported on untenable assumptions.
First, the author fails to consider the possibility that of the 12,000 students that did not travel to the state capitol building, many students (even a majority) could hold the same opinion as that of the active protestors. The author is of the opinion that any student that opposes the proposed cuts must travel to the state capitol building. There is no reason to believe so. It is highly probable that the 200 students who travelled to the state capitol building are representative of the true numerical strength of protestors. Infact, this is the more reasonable assumption if history were to be taken into account since freedom struggles are almost always marked by only a fraction of the total number of people that can be reasonably argued to have desired freedom.
Second, even if we are to ignore the above glaring gap in logic, the author cannot be excused for ignoring other possible reasons for the absence of those against the proposed cuts. We cannot eliminate the possible that a large number of students found it either inconvenient or unnecessary to go to the state capitol building for any number of reasons such as prior commitments, internships, pre-planned vacations that cannot be cancelled without incurring large losses and a myriad of such possibilities. Further, if the protest was organized, it is not impossible that the group decided to limit its number so as to avoid logistical problems that would arise due to an increase in the size of the group.
Third, the author assumes that just because the number of active protestors is a minority it should not be given heed to. This itself is a questionable stand. The author has not explicitly mentioned the effects of the proposed cuts and therefore it would be presumptuous to assume that the proposal will affect all the students of the college equally. If the proposed cuts directly or indirectly affect only a small minority of the college students, it is reasonable for the remaining students to not participate in the protests. However this is not a sound basis for neglecting the reservations of the minority, for obvious reasons.
The author could have strengthened his argument had he demonstrated that the remaining 12,000 students are conclusively disinterested in the protests and have no problems with the proposed cuts. The argument would further need to exemplify how the chain of events set into motion by the proposed cuts do not affect a minority only.
In conclusion, the author is markedly unconvincing and fails to cogently support his conclusion with the quoted facts.